Jesus Vs. Mythology

[Lecrae]

A few times, when trying to undermine the credibility of Jesus, Atheists have brought to my attention the similarities between mythological gods and Jesus. These similarities would include: Born of a virgin, died for the world, did miracles, etc. The similar gods mentioned are Oriris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Mithra. There's probably more.

That's not the part that worries me. The part that worries me is that it's said that the written miracles of these gods were written before the New Testament. This concerns me because obviously that would mean that the story of Jesus was copied from stories of Pagan gods.

If someone can help me find a sound answer to this, I would much appreciate it because it's a pretty major concern to the validity to the Christian faith and I want to know how to respond to Atheists that bring this up.

Thanks,

Lecrae

 

[jimmydiggs]

This concerns me because obviously that would mean that the story of Jesus was copied from stories of Pagan gods.

No, it does not obviously mean it was copied. Cultures have often come up with the same idea without being in contact with each other. Irrigation of crops, for example, even from the most atheistic of interpretations of history, comes from several cultures almost simultaneously. They were not close enough nor had the ability to travel far enough to have a roundtable discussion about the benefits of irrigation.

Also, you have to keep in mind that the timeline that atheists believe, and the timeline that Christians believe are two seperate timelines that overlap. This causes a lot of problems, because many Christians don't understand this. Compromising on Genesis also makes that very difficult to deal with because at that point you're already playing on their ballpark.

More importantly, when you research the claims (the claims more recently are originating from Archaya S.) you find that either what is said to have happened is never attributed to the pagan god in question, or the atheist has put a spin on what happened.

If someone can help me find a sound answer to this, I would much appreciate it because it's a pretty major concern to the validity to the Christian faith and I want to know how to respond to Atheists that bring this up.

Thanks,

Lecrae

I'll get you a few links.

 

[crossnote]

The events surrounding Jesus were attended with eye witnesses, actual historical events and fulfillment of previous prophecies (at least 200).
The myths have no such anchor in time and space,

 

[Hizikyah]

This also bothered me, however it led me to study very deeply. Thank Yahweh for this. Well the first thing I think we have to consider is satan was aroud since the beginning of creation, and satan is a counterfitter. Trying to muddy the waters to seperate people from Yahweh. Second, satan has used men to literraly paste pagan gods over most peoples beliefs about the Messiah. His teachings, charicter, looks, ways to celebrate Him etc. The problem is most people that believe in Him will fight you when you seperate these lies from the truth. However it has helped to set me free, I know the real Messiah, not the one concoted by man.

This was prophesied to happen:

Isayah 52:13-15, "Behold, My Servant will deal prudently; wisely. He will be exalted, and extolled, and be very high. Just as many were astonished at you, so His appearance was disfigured more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men; So many nations will be astonished at Him. Kings will shut their mouths at Him; for what had not been told them
they will see, and what they had not heard they will consider."

This is a 50 min study "video" about a few things that have been falsely pasted over the top of the truth, please check it out.

Resurrection - YouTube

 

[reject-tech]

Here's what I believe.

Instead of looking at it this way - Christianity copied secular
Look at it this way - Secular unknowingly for-told Christianity.

 

[RedTent]

God is the creator of the world and the bible tells of this. Nothing was before the creation. God IS and how God's principles are was established at that time, including the blood of Christ as our salvation. Men were so wicked that it was impossible for God to establish His kingdom with them, so God started all over with man through the flood and Noah. So, we all come from Noah. Noah knew God. By the time Nimrod, Noah's great grandson came along, most men had forgotten all about God, and because it is part of man to know there is a God, they made up Gods. Nimrod said it was the sun we were to worship. The bible talks about other ideas that people had, but they were made up.

When someone says the made up Gods came before the one true God, it just cannot be. People who knew God were always told about the Messiah. They were told that Christ would come as a man.

The idea that God started with the NT is not so.

 

[crossnote]

I see where this thread is going. Judeo/Christian religion is oldest since God's first promise of a Redeemer in Christ with Adam.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[Starcrash]

(As reprinted from an earlier post I put on an atheist forum):

To start with, it's logically fallacious; correlation doesn't prove causation. It doesn't matter if the Noah flood story appears to have many correlations to the Epic of Gilgamesh, because it's entirely possible that they both plagiarized from a different source (or just have coincidental similarities).

Also, an article on Cracked.com today put to rest many of the ideas that the Jesus myth was stolen from Egyptian myths (Cracked.com is merely a repository for jokes and fun -- the real authorities are found from the various hyperlinks from their article). A lack of correlation definitely means a lack of causation.

But let's say you can totally prove that the stories from the bible are rip-offs of earlier myths; do you think that will convince a believer that they're made up? Of course not! I'm skeptical of the idea that this argument has ever worked. A believer can simply rationalize that a member of the other religion saw visions or prophesies from Christianity (since that's totally possible,according to the Old Testament) and made up false myths (via misinterpretation) based on real prophesy. Or they can simply disbelieve your "facts", because apparently people like Bill Maher or his source (probably God is Not Great, page 9) will make this up to prove their point, as pointless as that point truly is.

This is why we have to stop this. Every bad atheist argument poisons the well filled with good arguments and gives theists a way to justify their belief that we're wrong or misleading.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Even the atheistexperience doesn't fall for the zeitgeist type notions.:

The first third of the film is an unscholarly, sophomoric, horribly flawed,​

over-simplification that tries to portray Christianity as nothing more than the
next incarnation of the astrologically themed religions that preceded it. Like
all conspiracy theories, they combine a few facts, focus on correlations and​

build an intriguing story that seems to fit the pieces together nicely -
provided you don't actually dig below the surface to find out where they might
have gone wrong. (source: Click Here )
​

https://publicchristianity.org/library/zeitgeist-time-to-discard-the-christian-story <--- video

EPS Web Author Profiles - Evangelical Philosophical Society


This is a start, let me know if you want a few more.

 

[Starcrash]

The events surrounding Jesus were attended with eye witnesses, actual historical events and fulfillment of previous prophecies (at least 200).
The myths have no such anchor in time and space,

We don't have eye-witness accounts of these events. The earliest non-biblical source is from The Antiquities written by Josephus around 100 AD (long after the events, clearly not witnessed by the author). Even if you were to believe that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses (as most historians do not), then there are stories that necessarily weren't by eye-witnesses... Jesus' temptations in the desert (no one present but Jesus and the devil), the near-stoning of the adulteress (only Jesus and the woman present for his "go and sin no more" line), the events of Jesus' life before meeting any of the alleged gospel writers (his birth narratives), and other stories such as Nicodemus and Jesus meeting privately on a rooftop.

Furthermore, many of the "actual historical events" of the bible should have secular sources, but don't. The driving out of moneychangers in the temple, for example, and Jesus' death would probably have historical records... and they may, but if they did they have never been recovered. Jesus' moral teachings ought to have impacted writings about morality at the time, but didn't. And worst of all, the "worldwide census" and "massacre of the innocents" under Herod are not established outside the bible -- how do events like these escape public notice?

Many of the myths do have an anchor in time or space (the Hindu holy book is one of them), but historians doubt the authenticity of the stories for many of the same reasons that they doubt the bible's stories.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Consider the extremely likely possibility that the revelation of Christ was common knowledge among Adam and his sons; and that this information was passed down throughout their generations in both the righteous and wicked seed lines. The wicked can only pervert what is right, so the mythologies that preceded from them are just perversions of the gospel account.

Two things you may wish to investigate:

• Adam and his sons wrote of the coming messiah in the stars and constellations. Two very interesting books on this are The Witness of the Stars by E.W. Bullinger and The Gospel in the Stars by Joseph Seiss, both of whom based their works on Mazzaroth by Frances Rolleston. Mazzaroth is available online as a pdf - here; and the other books are probably online as well in other formats.

• The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language by C.H. Kang presents a compelling argument that those who dispersed from Babel into China based their language's characters on the gospel message. It is available here in pdf format.

 

[Starcrash]

Here's what I believe.

Instead of looking at it this way - Christianity copied secular
Look at it this way - Secular unknowingly for-told Christianity.

Thank you for validating my theory about what a Christian might argue in this case. I cited Deuteronomy 13:1-3 for this argument.

"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, `Let us go after other gods'--which you have not known--`and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for Yahweh your God is testing you to know whether you love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:1-3, NKJV with Yahweh substituted for "the LORD").

 

[zone]

We don't have eye-witness accounts of these events. The earliest non-biblical source is from The Antiquities written by Josephus around 100 AD (long after the events, clearly not witnessed by the author). Even if you were to believe that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses (as most historians do not), then there are stories that necessarily weren't by eye-witnesses...

can't have it both ways. your argument is already over with this:

Even if you were to believe that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses....

if the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, their testimony is true.
if their testimony is true, toss everything else you posted and are for some inexplicable reason on a Christian forum trying to convince yourself of......in the trash.

the only historians who do not believe the eye witness accounts are:

Psalm 10:4
In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

Psalm 36:1
I have a message from God in my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Psalm 36:2
In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect or hate their sin.


oops.
there's that three letter word those historians have to try to BURY.

 

[Elin]

Here's what I believe.

Instead of looking at it this way - Christianity copied secular
Look at it this way - Secular unknowingly for-told Christianity.

Satan has been here since day one, and in a position to corrupt all God's revelation with pagan practices, and then presenting to the eyes of the blind God's revelation as an "aping" (pun intended) of paganism.

Paganism is nothing more than a corruption of God's revelation, not a forerunner of it.

 

[Starcrash]

Consider the extremely likely possibility that the revelation of Christ was common knowledge among Adam and his sons

What reason do we have to believe that this was "extremely likely"? Even if they had knowledge "the revelation of Christ", it wouldn't make any sense to them. According to Genesis, Adam and Even pre-dated the days of animal sacrifice, so they had no concept of "atonement of sins by blood"... they had no idea why anyone would need a "Messiah" (because they pre-dated Israel and its enslavement)... they wouldn't understand a second-coming without even understanding the idea of a "coming" (because Genesis explicitly stated that God visited them in The Garden casually and without fanfare).

But we have no reason to assume that they'd have any such knowledge, because 1) the bible doesn't say they did, and even implies that all of the knowledge they received was merely about "good and evil", and 2) they had no bible, nor the ability to read one even if they did. It's even less likely that such knowledge would be passed on, lacking the technology to do so accurately (passing on words verbally distorts them, as demonstrated by games such as Chinese Whipers/Telephone) and lacking the motivation among "evil seed lines" because they, like myself, would not believe those stories.

 

[zone]

What reason do we have to believe that this was "extremely likely"? Even if they had knowledge "the revelation of Christ", it wouldn't make any sense to them. According to Genesis, Adam and Even pre-dated the days of animal sacrifice, so they had no concept of "atonement of sins by blood"... they had no idea why anyone would need a "Messiah" (because they pre-dated Israel and its enslavement)... they wouldn't understand a second-coming without even understanding the idea of a "coming" (because Genesis explicitly stated that God visited them in The Garden casually and without fanfare).

But we have no reason to assume that they'd have any such knowledge, because 1) the bible doesn't say they did, and even implies that all of the knowledge they received was merely about "good and evil", and 2) they had no bible, nor the ability to read one even if they did. It's even less likely that such knowledge would be passed on, lacking the technology to do so accurately (passing on words verbally distorts them, as demonstrated by games such as Chinese Whipers/Telephone) and lacking the motivation among "evil seed lines" because they, like myself, would not believe those stories.

Starcrash,
question:

where are you going when you die?
any theories?

 

[4enlightment]

A few times, when trying to undermine the credibility of Jesus, Atheists have brought to my attention the similarities between mythological gods and Jesus. These similarities would include: Born of a virgin, died for the world, did miracles, etc. The similar gods mentioned are Oriris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Mithra. There's probably more.

That's not the part that worries me. The part that worries me is that it's said that the written miracles of these gods were written before the New Testament. This concerns me because obviously that would mean that the story of Jesus was copied from stories of Pagan gods.

If someone can help me find a sound answer to this, I would much appreciate it because it's a pretty major concern to the validity to the Christian faith and I want to know how to respond to Atheists that bring this up.

Thanks,

Lecrae

These are estimated dates that scholars came up with.

Jesus was born 7-2 BC Died 30-33 AD
Zues ? ?-100 AD

Apollo in the scriptures started preaching and healing (Even the Greeks) around 52-3 AD
Apollo the Greek god stories about him came was around 120-140 AD

Since the Greeks converted to Christianity they had witnessed the Miracles Jesus had done and Apollo ( and which he was born in Rome) , Paul, and Peter. Paul even stated in the scriptures to the followers which some were Hellenistic Jews and Greeks, and which they thought of them as gods. Paul told them not to do that. There was a young boy who was clothe only in a sheet, which I believe that he was a Greek that was a follower of Jesus at that time also because only Greeks dressed like that, not the Jews; so the Greeks had witness the miracles of Jesus as well. So I believe that the Greeks that didn't converted to Christianity had made up stories (And which they has heard about them) about them by turning them into Greeks gods and fabricated them also. The Greeks were very knowledgeable about astrology as well; and which I believe that they (Wise men) were Greeks or the ones that the Greeks had gotten their knowledge of astrology from since the Greeks seek for wisdom.

Mark 14 51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Acts 18:24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 1:12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

1 Corinthians 1:22Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,

 

[Starcrash]

can't have it both ways. your argument is already over with this:

Even if you were to believe that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses....

if the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, their testimony is true.
if their testimony is true, toss everything else you posted and are for some inexplicable reason on a Christian forum trying to convince yourself of......in the trash.

the only historians who do not believe the eye witness accounts are:

Psalm 10:4
In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

Psalm 36:1
I have a message from God in my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Psalm 36:2
In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect or hate their sin.


oops.
there's that three letter word those historians have to try to BURY.

Did you even read my argument or just skim it, looking for a reason to ignore it? If you read further, you'd see that the gospels couldn't be written by eye-witnesses even if we granted it as true.

 

[crossnote]

We don't have eye-witness accounts of these events. The earliest non-biblical source is from The Antiquities written by Josephus around 100 AD (long after the events, clearly not witnessed by the author). Even if you were to believe that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses (as most historians do not), then there are stories that necessarily weren't by eye-witnesses... Jesus' temptations in the desert (no one present but Jesus and the devil), the near-stoning of the adulteress (only Jesus and the woman present for his "go and sin no more" line), the events of Jesus' life before meeting any of the alleged gospel writers (his birth narratives), and other stories such as Nicodemus and Jesus meeting privately on a rooftop.

Furthermore, many of the "actual historical events" of the bible should have secular sources, but don't. The driving out of moneychangers in the temple, for example, and Jesus' death would probably have historical records... and they may, but if they did they have never been recovered. Jesus' moral teachings ought to have impacted writings about morality at the time, but didn't. And worst of all, the "worldwide census" and "massacre of the innocents" under Herod are not established outside the bible -- how do events like these escape public notice?

Many of the myths do have an anchor in time or space (the Hindu holy book is one of them), but historians doubt the authenticity of the stories for many of the same reasons that they doubt the bible's stories.

Apostles were eye witnesses. There were over 400 of the resurrection. Fulfilled prophecies, etc.etc. There is no comparisons in the world (non world of myths). Then we could compare correspondance of reality to the created universe between the biblical accounts and myths.

 

[Starcrash]

These are estimated dates that scholars came up with.

Jesus was born 7-2 BC Died 30-33 AD
Zues ? ?-100 AD

Greek mythology dates back at least 100 years before Jesus, but "mythology" doesn't only include "Greek mythology" -- that just happens to be the most common type that we're familiar with today. The Egyptians very famously had myths that were existent thousands of years before Jesus.

However, as I already argued, just because one predates the other doesn't necessarily mean that one stole from the other... which means that not only is the atheist argument about stealing myths logically fallacious, but so is yours.